Evidence Hub

Risk of clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection: retrospective cohort study

Sarah E. Daugherty, Yinglong Guo, Kevin N. Heath, M. C. Dasmariñas, K. Jubilo, J. Samranvedhya, M. Lipsitch, K. Cohen

British medical journal, 2021

26 participants · 414 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective To evaluate the excess risk and relative hazards for developing incident clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults aged 18-65. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Three merged data sources from a large United States health plan: a large national administrative claims database, an outpatient laboratory testing database, and an inpatient hospital admissions database. Participants Individuals aged 18-65 with continuous enrollment in the health plan from January 2019 to the date of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Three comparator groups, matched by propensity score, to individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2: a 2020 comparator group, an historical 2019 comparator group, and an historical comparator group with viral lower respiratory tract illness. Main outcome measures More than 50 clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined as the date of first SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (index date) plus 21 days) were identified using ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) codes. Excess risk in the four months after acute infection and hazard ratios with Bonferroni corrected 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results 14% of adults aged ≤65 who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 (27 074 of 193 113) had at least one new type of clinical sequelae that required medical care after the acute phase of the illness, which was 4.95% higher than in the 2020 comparator group. The risk for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 26 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free